Admission Non-Disclosures, Social Media Posts And Criminal Conduct Lead To Disbarment

The Maryland Court of Appeals has disbarred an attorney admitted in 2016 for violating bar admission disclosure obligations, criminal behavior toward a former romantic partner and – notably – bigoted social media statements.

The application disclosed a number of issues identified by the State Board of Law Examiners

The issues to be investigated included 1) an incident involving the Respondent urinating in public; 2) numerous criminal/traffic proceedings in which the Respondent was involved; and 3) a surety bond.

Maryland requires an in-person meeting with a representative of SLBE Character Committee

Due to the Respondent’s lengthy criminal and traffic history, [Mr.] Deeley and the Respondent met six times over the course of three months. [Mr.] Deeley was concerned that the Respondent had a problem with alcohol as more than half of the criminal and traffic proceedings disclosed on his Bar Application involved alcohol use. [Mr.] Deeley testified that it was his practice to inquire as to an applicant’s character, which included determining whether an applicant had past or current alcohol and/or drug abuse issues. [Mr.] Deeley further testified that he reviewed his file on the Respondent prior to trial and from that review, “it’s clear that we discussed drugs and alcohol.” The Respondent admits that he and [Mr.] Deeley discussed his prior and current habits with alcohol and his prior behavior and decisionmaking.

The court rejected Respondent’s contention that he had answered the questions about his mental health in subjective good faith

The hearing judge concluded that Respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) for: responding “No” to Questions 15(a)(i) and (ii) on the Bar Application and Question 6 on the Affirmation by General Bar Applicant; failing to supplement his Bar Application to include information that he was addicted to Percocet, sought treatment for the addiction, and was prescribed Suboxone; and failing to disclose that information to Mr. Deeley and Mr. Quinn during the bar admission process.

Respondent excepts to this conclusion. According to Respondent, the specific language of Question 15(a)(i)—“Do you have any condition or impairment (such as substance [or] alcohol abuse[]) that in any way currently affects, or[] could affect your ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner?”—indicated that a subjective response was required. According to Respondent, he subjectively determined that he did not use substances in a way that affected his ability to practice law in a competent and professional manner. For the same reason, Respondent also excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusion of law that he violated Rule 8.1(b) for failing to disclose to Mr. Deeley and Mr. Quinn his recent addiction to Percocet and his subsequent and ongoing treatment in the form of a prescription for Suboxone.

As the hearing judge noted, whether Respondent appreciated his substance abuse issues when he initially completed his application to the bar, he most certainly did by the summer of 2016 when he began to take Suboxone on a daily basis. As made clear in Comment [1] of Rule 8.1, the rule “also requires affirmative clarification of any misunderstanding on the part of the admissions or disciplinary authority of which the person involved becomes aware.” In Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Van Dusen, we explained that an applicant to the Maryland Bar is “under an obligation to supplement [any] response[s] with any material information up until . . . admission[.]” 443 Md. 413, 428, 116 A.3d 1013, 1022 (2015). The failure to do so is a violation of Rule 8.1(b). Id., 116 A.3d at 1022. We concluded that Van Dusen violated Rule 8.1(b) for not supplementing his application or otherwise informing the SBLE of his criminal activity and pending charges during the pendency of his bar application. Id., 116 A.3d at 1022. Similarly, in the instant case, we agree with the hearing judge that Respondent knowingly failed to supplement his answers to Question 15(a)(i) and (ii), and that he failed to disclose that information to the character committee. Accordingly, we conclude that Respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) and overrule Respondent’s exception.

The court also considered incidents of criminal conduct toward a romantic partner

In this case, we conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence of a criminal act—second-degree assault, prohibited by Md. Code, Criminal Law § 3-203—in violation of Rule 8.4(b). As the pattern jury instructions make clear, the elements for a second-degree assault in the form of battery are the non-accidental causing of offensive physical contact that is not consented to. MPJI-Cr 4:01. On January 8, 2019, Respondent caused offensive physical contact with J.T. Respondent admitted that, at the time of the incident, he was upset and did so to intentionally humiliate J.T. Following the incident, J.T. began to cry, ran away from Respondent, called the police, and filed for criminal charges and a protective order. We conclude that Respondent’s conduct met all of the requirements of a second-degree assault. Respondent intentionally caused offensive physical contact with J.T., which J.T. did not consent to. As such, we overrule Respondent’s contention that this interaction was consensual and conclude that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b).

Respondent also violated the terms of the protective orders, which, pursuant to § 4-509 of the Family Law Article of the Maryland Code, is a misdemeanor. We agree with the hearing judge’s conclusion that Respondent “knowingly and intentionally violated the various protective orders as follows: January 23, 2019 email to J.T.; January 23, 2019 text message to J.T.; March 2019 telephone conversation with J.T.; May 1, 2019 telephone conversation with J.T.; and May 9, 2019 meeting with J.T.” Accordingly, we overrule Respondent’s exceptions regarding the Rule 8.4(b) violation.

Notably (and as a caution) the court found he had violated the “expression of bias” rule in his social media

The hearing judge found that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(e) for permitting, authoring, sharing, and endorsing biased and prejudicial language on his public social media accounts which he used to advertise his legal practice. Respondent excepts to this conclusion, arguing that the social media posts were made within the context of appropriate social discourse within his social circle.

…Respondent does not argue that his posts were related to legitimate advocacy. We also agree with the hearing judge that the contents of Respondent’s posts, replete with racial, homophobic, and sexist remarks, conveyed inappropriate bias and were prejudicial to the administration of justice. The “casual usage of racial epithets in hip-hop music” and various cultural circles does not mollify the prejudicial impact of biased terminology for purposes of a Rule 8.4(e) violation.

The connection to practice

Respondent’s social media accounts contained profile biographies that advertised his law firm’s website and contact information. His username’s—“@THE_Chris_Law” and “chris_law_”—contained references to his law practice. The offending posts are interspersed between other posts advertising his legal services and providing legal information. Accordingly, we conclude that Respondent’s posts were conducted as part of his professional capacity as prohibited by Rule 8.4(e) and overrule Respondent’s exception.

Sanction

We determine that the hearing judge’s findings of mitigating factors—absence of prior disciplinary record; personal or emotional problems; good-faith efforts to rectify the consequences of his misconduct; cooperative attitude toward the proceedings; positive reputation in the legal community; and voluntarily seeking and receiving interim rehabilitation in the form of therapy—are not sufficient to avoid disbarment.

(Mike Frisch)